Abortion: an issue that just won't go away

Page Tools

Abortion is a debate that refuses to die, and Tony Abbott is
smiling with quiet satisfaction.

Last year John Howard made the Health Minister pull his head in
over his campaign to drum up outrage about Australia's abortion
rate. Abbott did what he was told - up to a point - but he always
regarded this as a temporary setback on a long road, and kept
making his case, privately, trying to get sympathisers to promote
the cause.

Abbott wants the abortion issue to be a big community talking
point. And now the debate has suddenly flared again, not just among
MPs but with a group of religious leaders, from an extraordinarily
wide collection of churches and faiths, urging action.

The dozen-or-so leaders who met in Sydney on Monday night came
from The Great Synagogue, Sydney, the Hindu Council of Australia,
Buddhist Council of NSW, Sikh Kirtan Prachar Mission of Australia
as well as from Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian,
Lutheran, Seventh Day Adventist and Mormon Churches, the Salvation
Army and the Wesley Central Mission.

The meeting grew out of a booklet of statements last year on
abortion solicited from churches and sponsored by the pro-life
Foundation for Human Development. Two Sydney businessmen, Linton
Tinkler and Ron Boys, played a major part in both the booklet and
Monday's meeting.

Tinkler, whose advertising agency was employed to do the
booklet, told The Age he is "not connected to Abbott in any way".
Nevertheless the anti-abortion church and political forces are
working closely, driven by a common interest.

About 40 people at the invitation-only gathering, including
several anti-abortion MPs - Liberal Alan Cadman, Nationals' Ron
Boswell (who that day released detailed questions that he has put
on notice to Abbott), independent senator Brian Harradine, Family
First senator-elect Steve Fielding, and a representative of Labor's
John Murphy (who was ill).

'Although those against abortion would love to turn back the clock... most know this is impossible.'

The demands being made by the religious group include collection
and publication of detailed statistics, more intensive counselling
of women, and adequate post-abortion follow-up. The group also
wants "as an initial measure the protection at law of the viable
foetus (after 20 weeks)" - that is, action against late-term
abortions.

Notably, the demands don't include restricting or abolishing
Medicare benefits for abortion - but those concerned about the
latest anti-abortion push will not miss the words "as an initial
measure".

Pro-choice supporters will also be alarmed at the issue being
taken up by such a wide cross-section of church people. This
potentially has more cachet than an argument being made by
politicians.

Anyway, there is political gridlock over an issue that only
causes MPs difficulties. A few parliamentarians (crossing party
lines) feel passionately and will agitate for change; others will
resist equally strongly. Most don't want to get embroiled. Although
Medicare payments are involved, federal MPs can say this is mostly
a state law matter.

Outside Parliament, however, if the church action is an
indication, there appears to be a new interest in sections of the
community in looking again at abortion, or at least getting more
information. The political activists will ginger along the outside
movement. If pressure mounts, those politicians who just want the
whole thing to go away will be forced to take more notice. At least
that's the theory.

The issue has come to focus particularly on late-term abortions,
although these form only a very small proportion. Peter Barnes,
from the Presbyterian Church, one of the signatories from Monday's
forum, says it has "put late-term abortions on the table. The age
of viability is getting lower and lower. The pro-abortionists need
to face the facts and say why it's a good thing we're killing
youngsters, not just accuse their opponents of being right-wing
fascists".

Although those against abortion would love to turn back the
clock to revisit the whole issue, most know this is impossible.
There is no chance, for instance, that Parliament would on a
conscience vote deny Medicare benefits for abortions.

On the other hand, advances in medical technology, allowing
premature babies to be saved at earlier and earlier ages, have made
more than anti-abortionists more squeamish about late-term
abortions.

Some observers see the new anti-abortion push as part of the
recent rise of the religious right, although it can equally be
viewed as the recycling of a perennial moral issue, in what is
perhaps a more receptive general climate.

Marion Maddox, author of the just-published God under Howard:
the Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics, sees what's
happening as being in "the very clear tradition of the way socially
conservative issues have emerged under the Howard Government. It
gets flagged. Then everybody jumps up and down about it, and the
issue disappears. Then it comes back with a gesture of public
support." She predicts the issue will "rumble along", probably
ending in a private member's bill or some tweaking of
regulations.

But in fact, Howard was appalled when Abbott pushed the issue
last year, and moved to suppress the debate. It's hard to see why
the PM would be any more enthusiastic this year. Yes, he's
anti-abortion, but for him, the whole issue is just bad news: his
party will set to fighting once again. It started yesterday with
Senate whip Jeannie Ferris hitting out at Ron Boswell. The PM had
said the debate was over, said Ferris, so what was Ron doing firing
it up?

Howard yesterday chose his words carefully but the message from
his office was that his view had not changed. But he knows he can
only do so much to curb this debate.